AAA's recent judgment says "Someone who does not vote is not a player" and that after some amount of time "we can move to the next turn without a vote."
ssg points out, "If we let the player whose turn it is unilaterally declare their turn over (as anomie has done) and we define players nebulously as those who participate, then it would be possible for someone to open a vote, vote on it themselves and then immediately declare the vote over. Everyone else would be a non-player at that point."
In addition, 212 clearly states, "When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players," so this is (among other things) an attempt a unilateral rule change that bypasses the democratic nature of the game.
AAA also fabricates "a game tradition has developed that all future judges should duly note in their own judgments," which is in clear violation of 212's "New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges."
I hereby call for unanimous vote via comments to overturn Aaron A Aaronson's judgments regarding 304.
(If 305 has started and AAA's most recent judgment invocation is void, so is this one.)
"Duly note" doesn't necessarily mean "obey"; it can mean "seriously consider." That's how I interpreted it, anyway. I don't think he was trying to control future judgments there.
Anyway, his ruling on the consent issue (which wasn't actually brought before him) is clearly unlawful, so I vote to overrule. Not that I'm sure it's completely necessary... it seems to me that we should be able to informally disregard judgments that break the rules since they're obviously invalid under 212 ("All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect").
"it seems to me that we should be able to informally disregard judgments that break the rules"
Surely you are sniffing glue, my friend? There is a specific defined procedure (indeed, the procedure we are now following) to overrule the decisions of a judge. By your reasoning, who is "we"? You? Those who are willing to disregard procedure?
And I vote to uphold the judge's lawful ruling.
And I would like to thank jay for opening this thread and following proper procedure. I am certain that my ruling will be upheld.
Unanimity is so hard to come by (your vote wouldn't count here, of course) that it probably will be upheld.
AAA: Surely you are sniffing glue, my friend? There is a specific defined procedure
The rules say all decisions by judges will be in accordance with the rules. Since your decision was not in accordance with the rules, it follows that it must not be a valid judge decision. If it's not a valid judge decision, it can't be a real judgment. If it's not a real judgment, we don't have to comply with it. Thus was my logic.
We should consider this a victory for all of us. With a tradition of firm and directive judicial activism we will be able to move the game forward in creative and interesting ways. I look forward to my next judgeship.
I encourage anomie and all future judges to vigorously expand this precedent and build game custom and game tradition through a body of case law.
AAA, if it really worked that way, why wouldn't the first judge simply award himself 200 points, declare the overruling procedure forbidden, and win? I contend that the rules do not actually allow judges to rule unchecked.
Such a ruling would not survive the trial of a unanimous vote to overrule, volkspider.
But the ruling goes into effect the moment it's pronounced, no? (It must because you used that reasoning to declare 304 ended without the usually-necessary majority consent.) So the unanimous vote would be illegitimate and have no effect on the game. You can't have it both ways -- either the rules apply to the judge or they don't.
Was there an open invocation he judged on?
jeblis -- ssg's "Has turn 304 ended?" invocation.
Something else I just realized: AAA's ruling, if legitimate, would have made overruling impossible! 212: "The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun." Yet his ruling ostensibly ended the current turn. There's your proof, folks.
It may be an activist judgment, but since 304 failed. The outcome and state of the game won't change significantly either way.
I'm inclined to vote no to overruling, just to move on.
I would say 305 has begun.
AAA was not asked to judge on the issue of the need for votes to continue after a judge's ruling, so anything he said on that subject was no more than noise. He can blather all he wants about any subject that he chooses while he is the judge, but only only the things he says that pertain to the question at hand would be considered part of his judgement. ctmf quite rightly set up a vote to continue, which passed, so this is now 305 and there is no mechanism to overturn AAA's judgement.
Turn 305 is underway, therefore this judgement and AAAs are taking place during turn 305. They are not void, however.
I encourage anomie and all future judges...
anomie resigned. Therefore, much as it pains me to inform you, the "previous player" is still... you.
ctmf: This isn't a judgement invocation. This is a attempt to overrule the AAA's judgement. Turn 305 is indeed in progress, so it is too late to overturn the judgement by rule 212.
There isn't anything to be done here.
Ok. To tell the truth, I'm not sure what AAA's judgement is about either, in that, I don't know that there's any action a judge could take to resolve anything, so it's moot.
There isn't anything to be done here.
Yup, I agree totally.
It would be nice to get through a whole turn without judgement. Hopefully we can pick up some more votes on 305 then just move on. anomie leaving and the mess with the majority agreement have made this turn rather messy, would be good to leave it behind and start fresh all round.
So I am still the judge here? Sweet. Somebody please invoke now! This is a terrible mess, and we need some clarity regarding the need to respect the rule of law.
I can not believe thew impertinence expressed by ssg!! A judge ruling on the matter at hand is "blathering" and "noise"?? Well now we know who is in the anarchist camp, anyways.
My riuling was a direct answer to the question "Has 304 ended?". Yes, it was over, it was next guy's turn, no need to vote. My decision regarding the voting procedure was intrinsic to the rest of the decision.
As we have a vote against overruling, we have now established that my ruling WAS legal, and SHOULD HAVE BEEN properly followed.
I am a little nervous about the admin activism going on here. Is the role of ctmf to goad us into playing as he deems we should, to set up votes that are unauthorized, and to disregard those judgments he dislikes? I think we have no seen, decisively, that the answer is "no".
AAA: As we have a vote against overruling
We don't -- he said he was inclined to vote no. Also, I'd argue that there was nothing to overrule since the judgment was invalid in the first place (violated 212 et al.).
Don't worry, volkspider, I am most certain that there are right-thinkers amongst the player pool who will understand the fundamental wisdom of my arguments and make the rational choice here.
"I'd argue that there was nothing to overrule since the judgment was invalid in the first place"
Argue all you want, but unless you invoke judgment your opinion that this was an invalid ruling is meaningless. Shall we go ask the judge?
There is no need to invoke judgement here. Let us continue with 305.
I'll withdraw this petition if we really are moving to 305 and AAA's done being judge.
I would vote for overruling the clearly illegal ruling, if the ruling had any practical effect whatsoever. As it is, I vote "whatevs."
We're in turn 305, and overruling the judgement would also have no practical effect.
Judge all you want but you still can't break the rules and can't force players to do so either. And deciding we don't need to vote was very clearly against the rules. I'm surprised anyone is even still arguing, the rules are written down and haven't changed since we started, this part at least is very easy to understand, and there is no reason why everyone can't go read them and see clearly that a majority vote was needed.
And then the majority vote was had and everything was fine.